Argue with them, don’t just write them off as ignorant

Posted by on

Letter to The Guardian

The flaw in the argument for denying far-right propagandists a platform is the failure to address how else the mass of us who oppose the unacceptable views can turn voters away from supporting them if we do not engage with their facile and untenable arguments.

The strategy of ignoring them or excoriating them has led to the present dangerous situation. They must be taken on in debate at every opportunity. If those who believe in liberal values are not able to expose the dangerous consequences of the hatemongers’ arguments, then they ought not to be in politics.

The best current example is France. For more than 30 years, the mainstream parties tried to deal with the odious National Front by ignoring or attacking it. Over that whole period its vote steadily increased. But when its leader, Marine Le Pen, was taken on by Emmanuel Macron in televised presidential election debates, she visibly crumpled. It is no accident that today the National Front is in disarray, with a much-criticised change of name and a reduced status in the polls. The lesson should be urgently learnt.
Michael Meadowcroft, Leeds, 31/3/2018

Epicurus reportedly spent hours in his garden in discussion and debate about life. No doubt some visitors strongly disagreed with his views, but he heard them out and, presumably politely, and set out his own beliefs in a measured manner. As is true today, there was plenty to debate, but he listened and was respectful. This we deduce from extant accounts.

We, likewise, should listen and understand contrary viewpoints, acknowledging their validity where appropriate. To be threatened in coarse and vulgar language is scary, and I deeply sympathise with politicians whose lives and families have been threatened by bullies. But it is better to try to calm these people down by asking them questions and trying to discover at least one mutually agreed point, if only to get them to talk, not rant. On a blog like this it is easy to ban coarse people whose English is inadequate. It happens infrequently, but I do try to engage with them quietly. Banning is a last resort.

A country being picked apart

Posted by on

Epicureans are not encouraged to involve themselves, or to comment on politics. Quite right. But there has to be a limit if you see your country, not to mention your planet, picked apart and lied to. How can we have peace of mind seeing Russian agents actively subverting the country in full sight and the rulers of the country (millionaire political donors) doing nothing about it?

When I first traveled in America in the 60’s politics were dirty, as they are everywhere, but both parties wanted the best for America, debate was polite and compromises were struck. Few used foul language or ascribed unpatriotic motives to others, or spread clearly false news. One couple I encountered hitchiking believed the United Nations was an agent of the devil who had sent white-painted tanks which were, at that very moment, advancing through Pennsylvania and occupying it, proving that wingnut mews is not a modern invention. The crazies are always with us, usually in tiny numbers. Things have changed.

The pattern is obvious to anyone who can read. Trump says something patently untrue and corrects himself the next day. Fox News only reports on the comments on the first pronouncement but says nothing about the correction. This happens every day and has been scrupulously documented. This is euphemistically called “governance”. The result is that, according to a CNN poll, 67% of all Americans doubt there was Russian subversion of the general election and thinks that Trump did a fine job cloistered alone with Putin without so much as a secretary to record the conversation. What has happened to integrity and love of country when this has become the norm, fiercely defended by the political party once the staunchest defender of the American way of life? How can we stand by and see the country picked apart by Putin with the help of nearly half the US population?

This is the Epicurean dilemma. Personally, I think it is irresponsible to ignore it and hope it goes away, but I realise I am opening myself to justifiable criticism. But then this is not about me – it is about truth and integrity.

The reactionary ayatollahs should be ashamed of themselves

Posted by on

Liberals in Iran have recently been outraged by the arrest of a teenage gymnast who posted videos of herself dancing in her bedroom. Maedeh Hojabri, who has tens of thousands of social media followers, was seen crying on state TV last week during what some suspected was a forced confession: under Iran’s sharia law, it is illegal for women to dance in public or to go out without a headscarf. Since then, Iranian women have been protesting by using the hashtag #DancingIsNotACrime and posting videos of themselves dancing. (The Week, 13 July 2018)

I am posting this to illustrate the depravity and stupidity of organised religion at its worst. This ban on dancing is a manifestation of an age-old male domination and bullying that may have been near universal in the 7th Century but has no place in the 21st. Dancing is an act of joy; the rules of the right wing ayatollahs and their thought police are instruments of oppression of a youngish population wanting to be modern and free.

The Americans and the British brought the ayatollahs to power years ago by force, installing Pahlevi and his corrupt gang against the wishes of an unwilling nation, seizing its oil. By now we should have been wise and man enough to have made amends, to have a rapprochement with Iran. So many years of aggravation indicate a moribund and incompetent foreign policy, mainly driven by prejudice and fear.

I don’t support Trump’s threats and bullying or his scrapping of the Iranian international nuclear deal. Rather, it’s a case of “a pox on both your houses”.

Truly sick

Posted by on

Grizzly bears today occupy only about three percent of their historic range in the lower 48 states. Yet last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took the Greater Yellowstone grizzly off the Endangered Species list, relinquishing management to the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, which border Yellowstone National Park. The result? The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission announced that it will allow trophy hunting of grizzlies for the first time in 40 years, starting September 1.

Would someone explain to me why it is “fun” to kill bears? – large targets, slow moving, even the most incompetent shot could kill a grizzly. They only threaten humans if they feel threatened themselves. I have (brief) experience to fall back on in this regard.

This is yet another grovel towards the heartless, immoral, wealthy idiots who pour cash into election campaigns. We should be protecting wildlife, not shooting it for “fun” and mounting heads on plaques in the living room of vulgar, multi-million dollar mansions. Of course, Epicurus couldn’t, wouldn’t shoot any animal for the hell of it, but then I am sure he wouldn’t have wanted to.

Epicureanism simply put

Posted by on

Epicureanism was never meant to be a dry academic philosophy. In fact, it is best kept away from academia, where, as usual with philosophy, long words render it dull, if not incomprehensible. Rather, it is a vital way of living which seeks to free men and women from a life of unhappiness, fear and anxiety. It is a missionary philosophy for the practical-minded with common sense. Let others complicate it if they wish, but I prefer it simple.

The following eight counsels are a basic guide to Epicurean living.
1) Don’t fear God.
2) Don’t worry about death.
3) Don’t fear pain.
4) Live simply.
5) Pursue pleasure wisely.
6) Make friends and be a good friend.
7) Be honest in your business and private life.
8) Avoid fame and political ambition.

I would add:

– Think of others;
– Be polite and considerate to everyone, regardless of race, age, class or gender;
– Try to see the other point of view;
– Meet others half way, if possible.
– Take the smooth and pleasant road, as free from stress and conflict as possible.
– Aim to be moderate in all things.
– Try to laugh and make others laugh. We don’t do it enough
– But don’t be put upon!

Trump’s economic delusions: Why the current boom won’t last

Posted by on

A few days ago, Trump gave a press conference regarding the state of America’s economy. He announced that American GDP had expanded by an annualised rate of 4.1%. This, along with a range of figures including a low unemployment rate and decent wage growth, seemed impressive. Trump predictably credited the economic buoyancy to his policies like environmental deregulation and tax cuts. Democrats, equally predictably, retorted that Trump was benefiting from Obama’s sound management. The fundamentals have changed little since Trump took office.

The reality is that the current boom won’t last. Partly because such high growth will incline the Fed to raise interest rates, putting a dampener on growth. Quantitive easing and federal bond-buying will be phased out. The global economy is slowing, which will affect the US sooner or later, even if its performance is high by developed world standards.

More importantly, Trump’s policies won’t do anything to boost growth in the long term, and in some cases will reduce it. For manufacturers, the effects of Trump’s tariffs and a potential trade war with China could more than offset any gains made by corporate tax reductions. Even for the rest of the economy, the tax cuts were a one-time affair. We are experiencing a bounce in growth as a result of them, but it will die down soon. On the other hand, the deficit-increasing nature of the tax cuts will harm America’s long term prospects, as debt interest payments increase and the markets lose their confidence. Running a high deficit during a boom will lessen the country’s ability to stimulate the economy when the next crisis hits. Additionally, America already has amongst the lowest tax burden of any developed country, even lower than Switzerland as a proportion of GDP. So its unlikely the tax cuts will significantly increase America’s competitiveness, particularly if infrastructure projects are cut to prevent the deficit from spiralling out of control.

Perhaps what’s most important is the impact of the Trump economy on the ordinary person. If you’re a company with a lot of offshore money, the tax cuts have been pretty good. But there’s very little evidence to suggest that this has resulted in higher wages for most Americans. Instead, income inequality, which is already the highest of any major developed country, is projected to increase further as a result of Trump’s reforms. While Wall Street celebrates the current boom, most people’s lives simply carry on as normal. And while I don’t believe the success of big business and finance is inherently bad, it isn’t a good barometer for how the country as a whole is doing. Conservatives love to talk of the importance of social cohesion, and rightfully so. Yet as far as their economic policies are concerned, they will create an America less cohesive than at any point since the Gilded Age. Just remember that the next time you hear of how well Trump’s America is doing.

Air pollution is a killer. Tax the polluters.

Posted by on

A recent opinion poll suggests that 70 per cent of people in the UK are worried about air pollution and half want the state to do more. The British government does nothing.

The main problem are highly polluting diesel vehicles. Air pollution will gradually fall as the oldest, most polluting vehicles are replaced. Yet the courts have ruled that the government must act now, regardless of cost. Air pollution campaigners say ministers have instead taken the cynical decision that it is cheaper to continue breaking the law.

There is no doubt that air pollution is bad for us. The damage can start before a child is born, restricting growth and brain development in the uterus, with lifelong effects. Children exposed to high levels of air pollution have lower lung function and have far more respiratory infections.

In adults, the result is more likely to be cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes or obesity. A US study that followed half a million people for 15 years found that those exposed to greater amounts of air pollution were more likely to die early, although it is difficult to establish what role air pollution plays in individual cases.

I long ago gave up my British driving lucence. The traffic is so dense and the driving so bad that if we can’t reach our destination by public transport we don’t go at all. But that doesn’t bear upon pollution except in so far as there are just too many vehicles on the road, pouring forth huge volumes of particulates.

Even if you don’t drive you can get seriouly ill living on a busy street or daily walking along it. Electric cars are a help (although the electricity still has to be generated), and a higher gas tax is badly needed, especially in America. The government debt is humungous, so why not at last tax people more for polluting and thus lower the debt a bit. Call it a pollution tax. This is suggested tongue in cheek. It’s the political version of suicide. People prefer to die, one assumes, than pay more tax.

A former spy-chief says social media emboldens the far Right.

Posted by on

I am reproducing a book review by Stephen Collins in this month’s edition of Prospect Magazine, because it needs to be emphasised and tepeated. The book is called “Principled Spying” by David Omand, a former head of GCHQ. (Georgetown University Press):

“Twitter and Facebook have a darker side. I have seen them encourage the growth of radical voices, most worryingly on the far right, where alt-right and other extremist tendencies have in recent years gained ground. These forces are becoming so powerful that they now threaten the foundations of western democracy.

“The internet’s pioneers thought the online world would lead to a mass engagement with global challenges such as conflict, the environment and poverty. But social media use is creating a contrary trend that taps into the deep roots of our tribal instincts. The likeminded gather together. And when this happens, misfortunes tend to be blamed on the “other.” The result is an increasing fragmentation of politics into “us versus them” group.
Anonymity lends the online world an especially nasty flavour. It encourages a vulgarity and crudeness that would not be tolerated face to face. A sense of online disinhibition feeds attacks on those who espouse contrary views and the effect can be powerful.

Access to diverse opinions are an essential part of how voters make up their minds. Increasingly, however, the design of social media encourages users to spend more time in a bubble of advertising and political messaging. When social media spreads information that’s intentionally misleading or false, it undermines the choices that underpin any open society. In the long-run, that flight from rationality in political debate further weakens confidence in public bodies, expertise and leadership which makes us ever-more vulnerable to manipulation.

“These are the characteristics that have left us vulnerable to demagogues and extremists and which bring us to the most worrying point of all: social media enhances the subversive agendas of states like Russia. It is striking that the tactics used to interfere in the US election aimed to polarise US politics, already a feature of the Trump campaign. Russian attempts to interfere in the French election were intended to promote Marine Le Pen’s chances, in the hope that her hard-right agenda – especially on immigration – would destabilise politics in France.

“Different kinds of extremism can feed off one another online. Violent IS propaganda has stoked its counterpart on the extreme right. The interaction of the two has further polarised opinion over immigration, housing and jobs, and put sections of the community at each other’s throats.

For liberal democracies to survive and thrive in the digital age, we have to understand the vulnerability of the modern political process to covert manipulation of public opinion. It can come from without or within the nation. If we fail to see it, we risk becoming agents of our own destruction.”

In a conversation about the state of the world my nearly-17 year old grandson said,”Don’t worry, everything will be alright”. I still don’t know how to process that hope-filled remark, and of course did not argue the point and come across as an old Jonah. But for his sake and for the sake of hopeful young people everywhere, I pray he turns out to be correct.
Free speech and democracy, however imperfect, won through by the skin of their teeth. They are not givens.

Brexit and British agriculture (a bit long but a window into the Brexit muddle)

Posted by on

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy provides a total of £3bn per year – more than half of all farm income – which on average supplies 50-80% of a British farmer’s income. The EU also protects its farmers with tariffs on agricultural imports from outside the bloc of 12.2%, rising to as much as 51% on lamb and 74% on milk. Were Britain’s food market opened up to cheap imports from, say,the US, many farmers would struggle to survive.

British agriculture employs 466,000, only 1.5% of the UK workforce, but provides 61% of Britain’s food. It also supplies Britain’s food and drink industry, the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, employing more than three million people. Furthermore, 70% of Britain’s land is farmed; farmers are the main stewards of the beautiful countryside.

The EU is the largest export market for British farming: it receives more than 60% of agri-food exports – and 90% of British beef exports. EU countries are also the source of 70% of the UK’s food imports. If Britain and the EU were to fail to conclude a free-trade deal, and British farmers were suddenly faced with high tariffs for their products, it would have a devastating effect. A free-trade deal, with zero tariffs on agricultural goods, may be agreed. However, if Britain leaves EU customs union, new inspections are likely to be introduced, which would pose a lot of difficulties for perishable products.

At the moment Common Agricultural Policy subsidies are calculated partly on hectares farmed, and partly tied to environmental improvements. But the system is controversial since the largest payments are paid out to the biggest landowners, including the Queen and large agri-businesses. The system also drives up the price of land, making it hard for new farmers to enter the market and encouraging farmers to farm every acre they possibly can.

So although the total level of subsidy is guaranteed until 2022, after Brexit in 2019 the largest single payments will be capped, and subsidies will be used instead to “incentivise methods of farming that create new habitats for wildlife, increase biodiversity, reduce flood risk, better mitigate climate change and improve air quality by reducing agricultural emissions”. Public money will be paid to upland sheep farmers for “protecting drystone walls and other iconic aspects of our heritage”, and used to improve public access to farmland.

This sounds very environmental, but farmers are panicking, desperate for subsidies to remain in place. Profit margins in farming are thin: one report last year suggested that 90% of farms would be bankrupted if single farm payments were removed. The government is accused of muddled thinking: it wants to turn Britain into a paradise for wildlife and improve productivity in British farming; and nonetheless wants to use new world trade deals to get lower food prices for consumers, while simultaneously maintaining Britain’s high food and animal welfare standards. How can this be done without decimating the industry?

Meanwhile, an estimated 80,000 seasonal workers are needed every year to pick Britain’s fruit, vegetable and flower crops; 75% of these workers come from Romania and Bulgaria, the rest from other eastern EU nations. Every Christmas season the poultry industry needs 13,000 workers to process turkeys and 58% of these are foreign. Of the vets in Britain’s abattoirs, 85% are EU nationals. In total, about one in ten agricultural workers are foreign migrants.

The Tory government is in its usual muddle (what’s new? Ed).In principle it recognises the need for a new seasonal agricultural workers scheme, similar to the one that existed before mass EU migration began. But if it agreed this it would go against the wishes of Brexit voters who want to rid the country of pesky foreigners. Meanwhile, farmers, have to plan ahead and fulfil contracts with their suppliers. By 2017, the number of seasonal workers had already dropped heavily – EU migrants were discouraged by the Brexit vote and the fall of sterling against the euro. As a result, large amounts of fruit and vegetables rotted in the fields and orchards. (An ediited version of an article in The Week, 17 March 2018)

This illustrates the pathetic inability of the Brexit blowhards to think through what they were pushing through. Nobody bothered to get into the weeds and work out answers to the swirl of problems Brexit would bring. “Stupid” and “irresponsible”? To be sure. But it illustrates what can happen when prejudice and emotion guides affairs of State. It isn’t even true that the EU is the origin of all the much-criticised regulations; many are home- grown interpretations of overall EU policy, arranged by British bureaucrats. Pluck out the mote in your own eye before setting about the motes of others!

Why is the above on Epicurus.Today? Because Brexit offends the Epicurean principles of peace of mind and moderation, not to mention equality and fairness to the greatest number. It is unwise to jump into the unknown without a parachute.

More on extreme religion

Posted by on

It appears that the governor of Jubaland, Somalia, has banned the use of single-use plastic bags on the grounds that “they pose a serious threat to the well-being of humans and animals alike”. It has also forbidden the logging of rare trees. The governor, Mohammed Abu Abdullah, is head of a terrorist group allied with al-Qa’eda.

Ah, you think, maybe groups like this are edging into a more civilised mode and are at least protecting the environment. And then you find out that Mohammed Abu Abdullah is alledgedly funding his government by selling banned ivory to the Chinese and by continuing to kill innocent civilians. It was recently responsible for murdering at least ten people in Mogadishu with car bombs and by storming a government building.

This feeds into the perception of Islam as a violent, inhumane religion. Sensible readers know well that a huge majority of people of the Islamic faith are peaceable decent folk, who deplore everything al-Qa’eda stands for. But governor Mohammed Abu Abdullah and his thugs play straight into the hands of right-wing racists and religious nuts in the West.

A pox on all of them! Except for the fact that they have far too much influence on our own immigration policies and attitudes. Case in point is the US ban on moslem visitors from certain moslem countries, a ban that enjoys huge support from a certain (christian?) segment of the population. We need to defend our borders, yes. But blanket bans are un-Epicurean.

Seneca on achievement and ambition

Posted by on

Seneca is particularly skeptical of the double-edged sword of achievement and ambition — which causes us to steep in our cesspool of insecurity, dissatisfaction, and clinging:.

“It is inevitable that life will be not just very short but very miserable for those who acquire by great toil what they must keep by greater toil. They achieve what they want laboriously; they possess what they have achieved anxiously; and meanwhile they take no account of time that will never more return. New preoccupations take the place of the old, hope excites more hope and ambition more ambition. They do not look for an end to their misery, but simply change the reason for it”.

This, Seneca cautions, is tenfold more toxic for the soul when one is working for somone else, toiling away toward goals laid out by another.

A personal take: I once employed people, who in a sense were employing me. I found myself “acquiring by great toil what I had to keep by greater toil.” I sort-of achieved what I wanted, very laboriously, and “possessed what I had achieved very anxiously”. Later, I adopted Epicureanism and devoted twenty years to writing music, with my wife – a new preoccupation. But in this endeavor we toiled, but it was fun; we achieved what we wanted to achieve, but we neither of us expected anything more than personal satisfaction. We made not a penny from it, and we didn’t care. We had done it to our own satisfaction.It was a joy.

Thought for the day: making advances

Posted by on

To The Times

In your report “Ex-director goes on sex offender register for making pass at friend”, you write that the judge told the defendant: “You do not make advances towards women who don’t want you to.” In other words, a woman must first indicate that an advance is welcome before a man can make one. But the act of indicating to a man that an advance is welcome is in itself an advance, and what if he finds it unwelcome?

Richard Hayes, Oxford

Keeping the cost of drugs high

Posted by on

The Trump administration has dramatically increased the number of legitimate shipments of prescriptions it seizes at the border. The Food and Drug Administration is seizing shipments of cheaper, legal medications from legitimate pharmacies around the world. High drug prices in the U.S. have long driven Americans to look internationally for cheaper medications. Historically, the federal government has turned a blind eye to those purchases — until now.
The FDA has quietly used funds it said were needed to capture shipments of opioids to step up its seizure of legitimate, safe drugs that individuals and pharmacies have long imported into the country.

One 85 year old man, who suffers fron Crohn’s disease, has been importing a drug called Asacol, which is no longer made or available in the US. He had no option but to order from abroad. The FDA has impounded the drug, putting his life at risk. But the government does not regard its job as acting for citizens, only companies (and companies who contribute to campaign funds, no doubt). The FDA acts only on behalf of pharmaceutical companies in this case – just as the Federal aviation department is there to support airlines, not the taxpayer. Government for the people, by the people? I don’t think this is what the Founders intended, but it won’t improve anytime soon with a corporatist Supreme Court in place and money the only yardstick. Sad!

Epicurus and politics, a response

Posted by on

If you type in ‘Epicurus and politics’ into Google, the first result you get is an excellent post by Robert. Here, he explained Epicurus’ arguments against politics- the needless anxiety caused by a gullible public being fooled by charlatans only interested in their own gain. Charismatic figures will emerge, appealing to the public’s sense of collective virtue. But in reality the state is a clumsy instrument for achieving good- the pleasures of the collective are far more easily obtainable through smaller communities and voluntary exchange.

Robert’s argument against Epicurus is one I used to wholeheartedly agree with. The modern world is simply too influenced by politics to make non-involvement rational. The state is entrenched in every facet of human life, from education to the workplace to care for the elderly. I would add that Epicurus failed to foresee the good that can be achieved through political change. We would never have had the civil rights movement or the women’s liberation were it not for those who were willing to sacrifice their own pleasure to act in the public interest. In this regard, Aristotle’s conceptualisation of happiness as a life of virtuous activity may be more appropriate to the present day. What I like about Epicurus’ hedonism is that however individualistic, it makes no claims to a universal morality. Rather, it takes into account circumstances and deals in terms of general principles and practises, rather than doctrinaire dogma.

However, the limits of Aristotelian aspirations to virtue soon become apparent when dealing with situations where there are no good outcomes. Take for example, Brexit. The United Kingdom finds itself in a position where all plausible outcomes are bad. There was always a choice to be made between the sort of Brexit the country wants: either a Brexit where trade with the EU is restricted but the British government gains a decent degree of regulatory freedom, or a Brexit where trade remains relatively open but the UK gains virtually no additional sovereignty of its own. The Leave campaign lied about this choice, arguing we could have effectively as much trade with the EU as we do now while ‘taking back control.’ The British government has negotiated with the EU as if this lie is true, which is why its plan for Brexit is the worst of both worlds- it restricts trade with the EU greatly, particularly in services, while subjecting the UK to a ‘common rulebook’ with the EU, which would effectively mean the UK having to obey EU rules and ECJ rulings while having no say in how they are made.

Given the disastrous and incompetent nature of the British government and its negotiations, the UK has three choices. It can either accept May’s deal, leave without a deal, or stay in the EU. All options will be bad, but in varying ways. Accepting May’s deal with not only cost the country economically, it will satisfy almost no one. Leaving without a deal may be to the liking of a few hardcore Eurosceptics, but most people would be outraged by a rapidly deteriorating country with no arrangements on security or trade. Staying in the EU is only possible through a referendum, which would never pass Parliament. And even if somehow a referendum occurred, and Remain won, there would be a hard-Right backlash, complaining that democracy had been undermined and that the elites had subverted the will of the people. The results would be horrific. Disillusionment, apathy and a sense of hopelessness would reach record levels.

In this and other similarly dismal scenarios, Epicurean non-participation makes sense. Getting involved in politics will be a significant detriment on one’s happiness and peace of mind. You will waste time arguing with people who won’t ever change their mind. And in return, you won’t make the country much better, because there are no options worth fighting for. It makes more sense simply to try to survive the damage our politics inflicts on us, rather than deluding yourself into believing you can make a difference. The pompous, arrogant politicians Epicurus warned us about are just as notorious today as they were in his time.

 

Hitler and Stalin would be so envious!

Posted by on

The Guardian reports (July 20th) that the Chinese government is busy creating an individual profiling system for each and every Chinese citizen, a “social score” which will indicate who is a “desirable employee”, reliable tenant, valuable customer, their eligibility for a loan, whether they are shirkers or a “waste of time”. And, of course, who is enthusiastic about the rule of Xi – and who is not. Those sending their children to Canada and other Western countries for education (and foreign citizenship?) should be fearful.

The creation of suitable algorithms has allowed power-crazed regimes to create such a system, which removes privacy, choice and the right to be an individual with views of one’s own. And it can only work in a compliant system where leaders and politicians say “yes” to the Great Leader about everything. Authoritarians are popping up all over the world as half news is broadcast and only the line dictated by the Leader is allowed to prevail.

If there is anything less Epicurean I haven’t heard of it. Brexit is driven by those with authoritarian instincts (so it is said); the Republican party has transformed itself, and is a “yes-crowd” for a president uninterested in the nation as a whole. All news that is not praise-full of the “smartest dealmaker in history” is “fake news”.

I hate to be constantly harping on the dangers ahead of us, but all who support constitutional government and the decent treatment of everyone regardless of race, has to do his or her bit to fight for liberty and democracy against craven cowards and timeservers interested only in power and continued easy income. You know who I mean!